Letters: 'Open Carry' debate still loaded

Your opinion articles were fair in pointing out the differences between the two sides of the “open carry” issue (“Out in the open,” June 20). Gerald Reaster’s article used the word “I” eight times, showing us how this is truly a personal issue. Susan Taylor painted the firearm advocates as wild cowboys just out looking for a gunfight. The truth is that guns owned by this group have killed fewer people than some politician’s cars.

Every year, more people are killed by automobiles than by guns, but I don’t see Lori Saldaña trying to control, restrict or ban Mustangs and Corvettes.

Taylor incorrectly states that the goal of the “open carry” group is to “legalize guns – anytime, anywhere, any place.” She continues to mislead the public by saying that this movement wants to remove the “discretion of law enforcement” from issuing permits. That simply is not true.

I have been offended many times by what I see in public, but I don’t complain because I believe in “individual” rights. Don’t want to see our firearms? Tell Lori Saldaña to pass legislation that allows people with the training, skill and background to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights without disturbing any other citizen.

The reader should come away with these two thoughts: the open carry protesters are preserving individuals’ rights and the anti-gun group is advocating for more government control.

GEORGE DELABARRE

Serra Mesa

I recently retired after 30 years of federal service as an Army infantry officer and FBI agent. During the majority of my 23-year tenure in the FBI, I was a SWAT operator and a sniper team leader. I possess a concealed carry permit. I am a strong supporter of the right of private citizens to own firearms for personal defense. I support – provided there are rigid standards, testing, and background checks in place – liberalizing the issuance of concealed carry permits. Nevertheless, I consider what these open carry protesters are doing to be irresponsible and inconsiderate.

A fundamental axiom of responsible firearms handling is “treat all guns as if they are loaded.” For starters, these men should carry their “unloaded” guns with the magazine well empty, the slide locked back and a plastic tie through the magazine well and chamber. Then it would be apparent to onlookers that the weapons indeed are unloaded and incapable of firing. Given today’s social climate, what do these open carry protesters think is the impact on the average person when someone walks into a coffee shop with a gun on his hip? I believe their actions are inconsiderate to the general public, burdensome to law enforcement and a disservice to their cause.

WILLIAM ESPINO

Carlsbad

Logical disconnects dominate the debate on Assembly Bill 1934, which would ban open carry of unloaded firearms in California. One side drones on about rights without regard for peoples’ sensitivities. The other parrots fears about stray bullets that have never materialized here or even in states where open carry of loaded weapons is allowed. The elephant in the room is California’s obsolete, inequitable system of concealed-weapons permits.